If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.

See more

See less

Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

Great post. Not really disagreeing with you but I did want to express what my complaints are against the front office. I see a marked difference between Donnie and Bird. Bird clearly had a problem with the teams talent level.

If Donnie came out tomorrow and said we have issues that need to be addressed at some point, I'd forget it once and for all. I personally believe, and I could be wrong, that our front office thinks the starting five going forward is good enough to beat Miami and that is just wrong.

I know it is extremely difficult to field a true title contender. I just want that to be the goal is all. I think our front office believes that once Roy, Hill and Paul hit their peaks that will happen. I disagree. I don't think we'll be much better in three years than we are now. There isn't much room for this to peak is all.

The Pacers only issue is that they're not Miami. It's a good possibility we'll be 2nd in the East: our group is solid. I'm not trying to attack your viewpoint here, but let me say this: many people are looking at how quickly Miami and Los Angeles became super teams and think we can do it too. We can't. The best way for us to win a championship is with a slow and steady approach, which is exactly what we're doing.

Comment

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

I like what the Pacers did this year. If Hibbert makes some improvements to his game, and adds a bit more endurance we can beat the Heat. And if you beat the Heat in the East then you have a shot at winning the East. As we all know with Hibbert on the floor we outscored Miami in the playoffs. Adding Manhimi and Plumlee to foul/block LeBron and Wade when they take it to the hoop when Hibbert is out of the game also helps. Also, while the Heat has a star in his prime and another star on the decline. We have Granger in his prime, West maybe on a bit of a decline but solid leadership, and every other player on our roster will only get better with time. Who on Miami besides LeBron is showing that they will be able to play at the same level or better for years to come. Maybe Chalmers?

By the way anyone who says Sixers, Knicks, and Nets are better than the Pacers are just doubters. Even Vegas odds has the low market Pacers as the third most likely team to come out of the East after Miami and Chicago.

I think it was a very cogent statement representing the sentiments of a lot of people on the forum, done in a way that set forth the arguments in a matter-of-fact fashion without any unnecessary "sky is falling" platitudes or (not-so-)subtle digs at the competency of the FO or ownership.

A very pleasant thread even if I completely disagree with the conclusion.

BillS

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

Comment

I don't care if the Pacers win a Championship. So many people refer to the team as "we" but if they win, I don't get a share of the money or a trophy or any credit for the victories. I'm a basketball fan and the Pacers are the pro franchise in my city, which is great because it means I get to see pro hoops a lot. To that end, what I need the Pacers to do in exchange for my money is present a good product. The 2011/2012 team was a good product and it looks like a good product should be on the court for several years to come. I'm going to enjoy that while I can.

Quoting this post to prove the point I was trying to make yesterday on the other thread, some people are just happy to "compete".

@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

Comment

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

Your theory that West's defensive and rebounding weaknesses is our key problem in getting past Miami is certainly plausible. But that's not where I am.

I think our key problem has been a stagnant offense. Granger, Hill, and PG are all similar type players: Good defenders, long, good perimeter shooters, okay to questionable on driving to the hole, and, at the end of the day, unable to create their own shot. Neither can any of them feed the post that well. Three starters. That's a problem.

If it weren't for David West, our offense would really stagnate.

Had we fixed the point guard problem this summer, or if Lance breaks out, then I could see ideas for trading West to beef up the front line to improve defense and rebounding.

I don't have the answer, but I don't think yours is an answer either. An Ibaka for West type trade screws our offense. An Ibake type player who has West's offensive skills is a superstar we could not obtain.

I think it was a very cogent statement representing the sentiments of a lot of people on the forum, done in a way that set forth the arguments in a matter-of-fact fashion without any unnecessary "sky is falling" platitudes or (not-so-)subtle digs at the competency of the FO or ownership.

A very pleasant thread even if I completely disagree with the conclusion.

Oh, it was well-structured and written, but ultimately, I disagree with it, and I still stand by my question. What's the point? There's nothing out there saying we're going to remain static and plateau at this exact same spot. During the Vogel era, we've done nothing but improve every month, and Walsh and Pritchard are proven to be active improvers.... long-term and recent history indicates the exact opposite of this post. There's just no reason to think this way, and what good does it do.

There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

Comment

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

Well in basketball, you really never know until the season unfolds.

At the end of it all, only one team for each conference will compete for the championship. While there were sure winners like Miami, there were surprises like Dallas two seasons ago. So for the Pacers, they just need to continue going up as their core is one of the strongest as a collective group.

Comment

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

The only fair way to judge Donnie Walsh is by his entire body of work with the franchise.

Some people are to fast to blame him for what occurred after 2000 & some are to fast to forget that his tenure with Indiana did not start with the 93/94 season.

He was not given the name Donnie Do Nothing in 1999 he was given that name in 1989.

I have said all along he is a good manager (whatever title you want to give him) of basketball talent, however whenever you are dealing with Walsh Warriors that is never good enough. Every move he made is the not only the only move that was available at the time it was the exact perfect thing to do.

It's very hard to combat that type of thinking.

It's already happening again in this day and age. Look at how many people are running to defend this off season by saying what was done were the only options available and even though they were the only options available they were great if not perfect decisions.

Now mind you just like BillS is pointing out that not everybody is content to be competitive I'm stating that not everybody is of the mind set of Walsh Warriors but just like those who are content these types also exists.

I will counter all of the "look who Donnie traded for" and state that we need to go look at his trade record from 1985 to 1994 and then again from 1994 to 2000 and then 2000 till Larry took over. I think when you look at it like that you will see there were times he was very active to times where you wondered if we weren't just on cruise control.

Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

Comment

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

[QUOTE=mattie;1493879]Quick note- I don’t intend this as a negative outlook on the Pacers future.
/QUOTE]

Your title certainly does. I think people who complain about the front office should at least give examples of things we could have done and didn't. The people pissed because the team was never as bad as they would hope shouldn't bother responding,I have no respect for their viewpoint. We offered Nash a contract and I really don't want the team adding old players. This was never a short term project.

Comment

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

While I'm really enjoying the discussion in this thread, I do disagree with some of your logic, mattie.

You cite the 97-98 Pacers as an example of a Pacers team that could legitimately compete for a title. While that team was no doubt one of the best this franchise has ever assembled, it was only good for the 5th best record in the league that year.

Here's a quick look around the league in 1998:
-MJ and Pippen making one final run in Chicago
-Stockton & Malone leading a dominant Utah team
-New York - while not as good as years past - still had Ewing averaging a double-double, Allan Houston, LJ, Oakley, and Starks and upset a very good Miami team in the playoffs
-Gary Payton, Schrempf, and Vin Baker (yes, Vin Baker was pretty good once upon a time) leading Seattle to 61 wins
-A Shaq-led Lakers team that was only a Kobe away from dominating the next 5 years, but still good enough to win 61 games

Now, let's re-examine the league in 2012:
-Miami finally clicked, has the best player in the world coming off one of the best years a basketball player has ever had. Add Ray Allen to the mix, no reason not to expect them not to dominate.
-OKC is young, but loaded with talent. A trip to the NBA Finals and Olympics (for most of the core players anyway) should serve as a great learning experience. Will only get better.
-LAL will start Nash, Kobe, Artest, Gasol, and Howard. Granted, they're on the older side, but it is still one of the most impressive lineups in recent NBA history.
-Boston returns a core that is no doubt old, but very experienced, well-coached, and hungry. Let's not forget how close they came to beating Miami this year.

I just fail to see how 2012 is a markedly different environment than 1998. The team that pushed Jordan to Game 7 in 98 and finally reached the Finals in 2000 had largely the same core for 6 or 7 years. The 2000 Finals represented the proverbial ceiling for that group. You can argue the 98 team was better and may find a sympathetic ear or two. But what can't be argued is they lost to two better teams. Jordan and the Bulls and the beginning of a Lakers dynasty.

If getting to a couple Conference Finals and an NBA Finals in the 90s is considered competing for a championship, the same standard must be applied today. Looking around the league - especially the Eastern Conference - I have every reason to believe the Pacers can compete for a championship just like those 90s teams.

Quick note- I don’t intend this as a negative outlook on the Pacers future.
/QUOTE]

Your title certainly does. I think people who complain about the front office should at least give examples of things we could have done and didn't. The people pissed because the team was never as bad as they would hope shouldn't bother responding,I have no respect for your viewpoint. We offered Nash a contract and I really don't want the team adding old players. This was never a short term project.

This was proven to be a myth. I don't have time right now but someone will provide us the link to the article showing that Nash went directly to the Lakers and the Pacers (nor any other team) made an offer.

Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

Comment

Re: Why the Pacers will NOT compete for a championship in the next 5 years

Doesn't this offseason make some more sense though if we operate under the theory that Donnie is just keeping shop for a year while Bird rests?

Anyway, I'm firmly somewhere in the middle on this. I think we can compete for a title, but I definitely don't think we can win one. To me competing means, could you see a way where your team finds itself in the conference finals, my answer is yes, but right now I don't really see a way where we would find a way to win the whole damn thing unless Paul makes a gigantic leap offensively. I'm not content with just competing forever, but I do think it is a good spot to be heading into this particular season, I would have never even believed I would have those kind of hopes last summer.

Comment

By the way I'll list people who fielded teams JUST last year who could have conceivably won: Memphis, Chicago, San Antonio, LAL, Miami, and OKC. That's just last year. Every team I listed had something they brought to the table that could exploit any other team. Memphis had defense and a dominate front court. LA had three superstars, OKC and Miami both had their big three, San Antonio had one of the most explosive offenses ever. Chicago had defense and Rose.

There's nothing that Memphis has that the Pacers don't.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.